You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

With Marlin's there really is no preferred era for accuracy, they all seem to shoot with a high degree of accuracy.

As for quality, meaning fit and finish, like most things, the earlier the better.

It seems that the super tight fit of wood to metal started dropping the most in the mid-1970's, but doesn't seem to have gotten much worse since the mid-1980's.

The older rifles made up until sometime in the late 1960's?? had the butt stock fitted by induction heating the receiver tangs, and pressing the wood on.
This actually "scorched" the wood to a tight fit, and on many older rifles you can see scorching on the wood if you remove the stock.
I don't know if Marlin still does this or not.

It looks like at some point Marlin stopped fitting the wood as closely to the rear tang areas, leaving a gap between the tangs and the wood and the receiver bolsters, but still very tight on the tang sides.

In any event, more recent rifles have gaps at the rear of the tangs, and don't meet the receiver bolsters as tightly as older guns.
The quality of the actual metal work seems to still be high, and accuracy is as good as anything in the past.

Where Marlin has compromised is in the use of the rebounding hammer and the cross-bolt safety. This is an abomination to traditionalist, but DOES make the rifle safer for the average shooter.

Another area where things have fallen is in the walnut. It's gotten lighter and lighter since the late 1970's, until it's an almost blond color today.
This is a pattern that seems to have affected all gun makers over the same time frame, and is probably due to the expense and difficulty in getting good American walnut.

In the older guns, every now and then you see some really fancy figured walnut turn up. Today's guns seem to be pretty plain wood without even the nice straight grain as used on the guns made in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

Bottom line is, for shooting purposes there are seldom bad Marlin's of any era.
For quality of fit and finish, and appearance of wood, the older guns are better.

My oldest 39 is a 1964 39A Mountie. It has a identical twin 1965 vintage. Both seem to digest most rimfire ammo and keep it under an inch at 50 yards (sometimes better, sometimes worsel. operater caused) with iron sights. Wood is not spectacular but I've grown to appreciate the non-shiney finish that was used in that era. Fit is pretty good.

My 1974 vintage 39A with the PG stock and longer barrel is probably the smoothest of the bunch. Wood is the best too, but still pretty plain. Accuracy its very good. I''ve managed nickle sized groups with it at 50 yards. It is somewhat finicky but likes more ammo than it dislikes.

My late eighties/early nineties 39TDS (unsure of exact vintage) is with its prefered ammo the most accurate of the bunch. It is very finicky but luckily one of the ammo brands it shoots well is the Federal Bulk. Amazingly, it shoots the CB longs quite well too. I've managed some impressive 100 yard groups with this rifle. I can't fairly access the fit and finish of this carbine because it came to me in bad shape. It was abused and neglected. Some cleaning, a few new parts (ejector group) and some firing pin truing and the little TDS impressed me. Eventually I found the Mountie(s) to be better suited for my needs and traded it off. Probably should have kept it... but that's the way it goes.

Well, another week at work just ate my lunch. Two more days (yep, got to work Saturday again). What ever convinced me that owning my own business was a good idea?

Catching up on reading this thread along with a can of my favorite beverage before bed. Such interesting reading. Wishing I could get to the range tomorrow, the only dry day in the next several. My firing pin issue on the 39 is not yet resolve. Firing pin is still sitting in the window sill awaiting filing down the stop according to Mo's directions. Soon, I hope.

Quote:

I checked out the rimfire Leupolds, and while the quality is evident and the size just about right, the friction adjustment knobs (no click adjustments) turned me off. Looking for the good/bad/and ugly of your search for the perfect scope for your 39A.

MP, I like my Leupold rimfire a LOT even with the "clickless" adjustments. In fact, I gotta say, I appreciate the "clicklessness" of it, but I like the ability to use my own gut-level sense of how far to move it without being constrained by the makers clicks.

Troop, another great photo. What's the scope?

Wheel, until tonight I missed your masterpiece essay in post 186 on how the 39A works. Excellent writing. Even without my 39 in my hands, I followed most of your descriptions. Look forward to working through it again with rifle in hand ... once work lets up just a bit ...

This continues to be an informative learning experience for me. Thanks to all who are contributing.

The scope is an old Burris 2x7 compact that I had for the longest time on my lightweight 270 I use for hunting in the steeper stuff. The last 4 years or so it has been on the marlin and I think that is where it is staying.

I also have the same scope on an AR/M4. It is an ideal scope for that purpose too, at least it is about perfect for me.

The high prevalence of disease and parasites in jackrabbits also affects human predation - many hunters will not gather the jackrabbits they shoot, and those that do are well advised to wear gloves while handling carcasses and to cook the meat thoroughly. Most hunting of jackrabbits is done for pest control or sport.

Was just curious as to how much everyone cleans their 39A's. I have heard a lot of folks never clean the barrel, just the action. I've had mine for a little over 2 years, and it probably has 1000-1500 rounds through it. The only thing I've ever done to the barrel is run a boresnake through it. I have cleaned the action with Hoppe's #9 several times, but have not been religious about cleaning up very much on the .22 like I have my 336C. What do you think? Should I get ready for a crucifixion for not cleaning more?

Whether to clean a .22 rim fire or not is a popular topic on the internet.

The 1950 Marlin I now own was owned by an extended family and an unknown number of people used it over the years.
I doubt the bore was ever cleaned in all those years, and it's in mint condition.

On the other hand, I prefer to protect my guns with a rust proofing lube.
So, after shooting the Marlin, I disassemble it, lock down the ejector, and put a rod down the bore.
At the muzzle I attach a loop-type patch holder and a patch. I coat the patch with CLP Breakfree, and PULL the patch back to the chamber, where it's removed.
Since all rods will flex, this prevents bumping or rubbing the bore, and pulling it from muzzle to chamber prevents damaging the muzzle.

The CLP removes any fouling, and prevents rust. I've done this on .22's for many years, and I haven't had one rust or degrade in accuracy.

Modern .22 ammo is not corrosive like the old 1920's and 1930's stuff was, but make no mistake, a .22 bore darned well CAN rust under the right conditions, and modern .22 ammo does NOT "coat the bore" with rust preventing materials.

Modern .22 ammo isn't corrosive, and the lead bullets don't foul most RIFLE barrels like jacketed ammo.
So, you can get away with not cleaning it and you'll be OK UNLESS you happen to hit on a situation where it can rust.

The action is another story. It should be cleaned fairly often to prevent corrosion, and wear caused by gritty fouling.

I'll have to look for your answer tomorrow. I just realized it's after midnight and I gotta go to work in the morning! (Lutheran music director) I'll be back on after 12:30 edt. Thanks so far for the replies.

If not crucified I might get burned at the stake for this bit of heresy: because I suspect that, over time, disassembly and reassembly of firearms like the 39 can result in a gradual degradation of the fit between parts and because, as others have noted, I feel that the main purpose of running a cleaning rod down the bore of a typical .22 rimfire serves more to protect the bore than to clean it, on those times I think it needs it I VERY judiciously run a rod with a patch containing a preservative down the bore from the muzzle to the breech. I take extreme care to avoid touching the crown of the muzzle with the rod. There are times, of course, when a disassembly and thorough cleaning is merited.

This procedure isn't so unusual as many rifles (and, with the exception of Dan Wesson, all revolvers) are made so that cleaning/protecting the bore can only be done practically via the muzzle.

I forgot to mention that when I run the boresnake through the barrel that I soak the snake in Hoppes #9 after the first pass. I guess that could qualify as giving the barrel a dose of rust prevention. I'm still curious about the CLP on the action though. If I switched to using CLP on the barrel, could it be used on the action too?

CLP Breakfree does include a "cleaner" function, but it's somewhat misunderstood.

The "cleaner" part of CLP really means the lube keeps fouling soft and allows the action to "sweep" it out of the way of moving parts, allowing the gun to continue to function.

While it can be used as a field cleaner, it has no effect on copper fouling, and isn't all that good a bore solvent, EXCEPT it can work with .22 rim fire as long as there's no leading.

When I actually clean the bore, I use Hoppe's. I also use it for the action, since it works better/faster than CLP for that.

With that said, other than .22 revolvers and autos, I seldom see any real bore fouling in rifles, especially not in high grade barrels like the Marlin.
So unless your particular rifle OR ammo produces fouling, all that's really necessary is to prevent corrosion.
This is a matter of how you store the gun, and hows the weather where you live.

Although there was one occasion where I was staying at a cabin for a week, and a mouse PEED on a Colt Trooper Mark III .22 and caused the muzzle and bore to corrode.
I have to say that that was a special case.
(Never did get a clear shot at the little vandal).

Most of the time I store my 39A in its Marlin cloth case or it is stored by the door awaiting the casual squirrel. The last I looked we didn't have too much trouble with mice in the house, so I should be OK just staying with my Hoppe's for both the barrel and the action. Besides, I use Hoppe's so much that my wife thinks it's some kind of expensive aftershave lotion anyway.

At the muzzle I attach a loop-type patch holder and a patch. I coat the patch with CLP Breakfree, and PULL the patch back to the chamber, where it's removed.
Since all rods will flex, this prevents bumping or rubbing the bore, and pulling it from muzzle to chamber prevents damaging the muzzle.

That's a good tip. I'll give you one more that I learned from my dad: Don't screw the bore cleaning tool tightly into the rod, particularly a bore brush. Screw it in, and then back it out about two turns. That way it can follow the rifling rather than scratch across it.

My 39 has micro-groove rifling, and lead fowling has never been much of a problem. I'm also a big fan of using Breakfree CLP for just about everthing, and since it's still going strong after 36 years, it would take a lot to convince me to change.

Anyone else get a sling from marlin lately? The one I received a couple months back smelled like it was tanned in gasoline. I wrapped it in newspaper and left it on a radiator to mellow out a bit...turned the paper translucent each time. The smell was distinctively petroleum-related, and three months later it still reeks. Any idea what I can do to clean it w/o ruining the leather?

If they say "no", get them to replace it. If they say "yes", I'd return it promptly for a refund or credit.

I've got Quake Claws on all 3 of my long guns (even my shotgun), and couldn't be happier. Not exactly a classic look - they're synthetic, not leather or cloth - but at least it doesn't smell like petrol.

The Padded Super Sling is what I have on my 39A. It does double duty on the 336 as well. I think I got mine at Wal-Mart for about $25, but you can go to Outdoor Connections and order one online for about the same price. What attracted me was the ease of adjustment with one hand. Sometime I wish that I had bought the unpadded version as the pad sometimes gets in my way, but if I have to carry the rifle a long way, I appreciate the pad.

I'd rather be at the range (or better, in the woods)
this weekend with my 39 than at work (which is where I'll be).

Glad you're all here contributing to a knowledge of 39's.

Nem,

(who's 39 is still without a functional firing pin -
it's sitting on one of my two work benchs waiting for modification;
did I mention that "week from hell at work"? -
but who is living 39-dom vicariously in this thread,
and who will get my barrel cut down to 18-20" asap...<heresy!>)

dfarriswheel, or anyone else who has replaced their rear sight, do you want to sell the rear elevaror or the complete sight you took off that beautiful rifle so I can put it on my 1947 39A? I presume not but if I don't ask, I sure can't receive. Thanks anyway.

This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.